Overwatch Getting Rave Reviews

21 heroes, 12 maps. that is the only mistake I think you made.

The big problem here being is, you are comparing games with 10+ years of legacy. Games that are far from their first iterations. And games that focus on different things.

Yes, CoD and BF have "all that content" but then you had another muppet on this forum saying "SW:BF2 had 4x the content" and "Unreal Tournement 2k4 launched with 48 maps, and 26 game modes!!!!!" completely forgetting that production costs/time have increased a ridiculous ammount now. Not to mention the idea that "less is more" is often a valid arguement, as alot of that content never gets played:

A CoD campaign is 5-6 hours long with next to no variety.
A CoD campaign is alot of work for what will typically be 1% of a CoD Fan's time consuming.
CoD Multiplayer has 15+ game modes, yet only 2-3 of those have "high" populations ... Free4all, Team Deathmatch and usually one or 2 more... that are far behind team deathmatch.... options are great, but s*it options that barely anybody plays is not.

Now, a legit critism in my mind is Overwatch's feature set is very light. But if you look at TF2 (bare in mind, valve already have an engine built... and other shooter games to work with) had less content than Overwatch on release. People love comparing 2016 TF2 .... its like development doesn't take time...

I imagine Blizzard had to charge for Overwatch to justify it's initial existance.... I didn't think it would explode as much as it has.

MOBA players play the same 1 map forever... this whole idea of "more is better" is not always true... not at all.

@trugs26

I totally understand where you're coming from with the RNG. It's a legit complaint. I think console gamers are more used to being used like this, but as a PC gamer it's a little upsetting when you pay for a game and get treated like a free to player. At least it doesn't advertise paid content in the main menu, I suppose. It just feels a little underhanded, an unnecessary Activision-esque taint to an otherwise golden game.

That's because you kept missing my point and I needed to reiterate. For example, just now, "madden and cod both have micro-transactions as well" - have you literally not been reading what I've been typing? Once again,I've already acknowledged and addressed that very point. Since you don't want me to repeat things, I won't bother clarifying for you again.

Thankfully, others have chimed in on the matter and brought about some more perspective.

Being off by ~33% doesn't illustrate much game knowledge. Talking about games you haven't bought in years doesn't either. Then there is stuff like the fact that Modern FPS games like CoD and Battlefield release with 9-13 maps, so ragging on a game for only having 12 is a bit silly. Particularly when it is only $40.

Many people adore the game. Many people feel it has a lot more content then most $60 games. You don't and that is okay, particularly since you are not particularly familiar with the game. Just stop pretending everyone knows you are right. I think I haven't enjoyed a game this much in years, and you don't make a compelling argument to make me think otherwise.

Thanks for chiming in. I did say 3 maps and 4 modes, so 3*4 = 12, so I wasn't wrong there :P

Great points regarding that more does not equal better. I do agree with this sentiment. But I do believe that more quality content is indeed better (sorry, stating the obvious). For example, more maps is almost always a good thing. Or more skins or cosmetic updates (in this case, my main criticism of Overwatch is that they tried to monetise this aspect of the game).

Regarding people comparing it to TF2, I do agree that it's stupid that people compare 2016 TF2 rather than launch TF2. But in my opinion, I have similar (not the same) criticisms for launch TF2 as well.

You're being overly critical of my game knowledge. I assumed there were equal parts in each class. That is, 4 in each class, and 4 classes. So 4*4 is 16. That's where I got the number from. I made this judgement off the top of my head based on what the character screen looked like visually. There is actually 4-6 in each class. Putting it as a percentage like that makes it seem worse than it actually is. So instead of trying to knick-pick my arguments, argue the actual points that I present rather. If I'm wrong about something, then tell me I'm wrong. And I don't mean say that I'm slightly off with the numbers (relative to the other games I compared it with). I mean to argue the actual point. For example, the number of characters still pales in comparison to the games I illustrated.

Regarding the CoD point: they might only have 1 or 2 maps more, but again, in combination with a high budget single player campaign, the modes and loadouts, the amount of content greatly outweighs Overwatch (in fact, the campaign itself does the trick).

Regarding you last point: I'm not overly familiar with the game yet, but enough to make the judgements I'm making. That is, I've played through every map and mode with a focus on 3 mains (Genji, Widowmaker, and Mercy) and messed around with most of the other characters. I've played it every night since I got the game. It's a really good game, I don't deny that. But I do think that paying a high price tag for a game that doesn't offer much outside of 4 game modes and 3 maps per mode AND has the audacity to hide content behind a F2P model is absurd.

That's true. Thanks for understanding :P It's hard to keep up with the number of people replying against my point. I think I'll have to give it a rest now. I've made my points and it too difficult to keep up with everyone's arguments.

I can see the complaints about randomised loot. But that is the best way to make money without locking characters/maps behind a paywall (Yes, I consider a standard expansion a bad idea of a competitive multiplayer shooter, always hated that about CoD/BF etc). If you could just pay for individual skins then there would be a lot less income, its the Hearthstone mindset as apposed to anything else. This way people pay to gamble, chances are the average gambeler will pay out more that skin buyers.

A £20 expansion that devides the community won't cut it for funding games anymore. I see this as the only decent compromise. At least you get Coins to buy skins you want when you get duplicates, and people are asking for a "Disenchanting" system like Hearthstone (you can break down items for currency).

I feel the game could of used another 6 months in the oven to get more quality of life features in place, but given how much of a money sink hole project TITAN must have been, I have no doubt that the directors were just like "We've got to release this.. as soon as possible".

Personally, I think the ideal thing to do would have been to charge $40 for the game, then add in the randomised loot 6 or so months later with the monetised model. Maybe it's just me, but I just found it baffling that I paid $40 for a fairly light game which had things locked behind a F2P model on day 1.

Cosmetic loot system and level progression were added only at the end of 2015. Monetized loot crates were only added at release, and were something that was asked for by the community after those were first introduced in the beta.

Personally, i've played hundreds of hours before they did any of this, the gameplay is that good on its own merits.

But nowadays you can't expect kids to play your game without this stupid shit, so it's there. And it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Let them pay for future content, that will be free for me.

This game is awesome but a few of these trophies are driving me nuts. They ask some unreasonable shit like getting 3 solo kills with reaper with a single clip and get 4 kills or assists using orbs with Zenyatta within 6 seconds.

People are going to be laughing when next year this time we have 6 more characters and 6 more maps.

Plus all these people talking about not enough maps, well in almost all games majority of those maps are dead. In Counter-Strike almost everyone picks Dust. It's annoying AF. In BF4 almost everyone picks Operation Locker. It's annoying AF. So far in Overwatch almost all the maps have gotten good reviews and the pros are very split on Payload and King of Hill and all the maps between those. At least we are using all the maps.

@trugs26: @trugs26: There's nothing to add. You're wishing the current system in place was something else entirely. There's a reason why items are random unlocks. If they were to organize items to be unlocked by their respective characters then players would work towards that instead of playing the game objectively.

@NathanDrakeSwag: The zenyatta one doesnt seem that hard.

IGN review nails it.....here's a quote about synergies, something I'll need to look into to up my game I guess:

"For example: On her own, Pharah can be a major headache by hurling herself high into the air and hovering there while raining rocket-propelled death down on opposing teams from angles that render both cover and positioning moot. But with Mercy the winged medic tending to her, Pharah becomes a whole different kind of problem. Mercy’s Guardian Angel ability allows her to swoop toward any ally in range, even ones up in the sky. Combined with her ability to slow her descent with her wings, she's the only character that can follow Pharah wherever she goes. So you end up with a dynamic duo flying all over the place – the one shoving rockets down people's throats while the other switches between healing her up and buffing her already substantial damage output as needed.

Reinhardt and Lucio, Zarya and Reaper, Torbjorn and Symmetra…there's no shortage of opportunities for keen, coordinated play, and when you reach a point where you feel comfortable switching your character on the fly in the middle of a match to capitalize on weak enemy team composition, you feel like a tactical genius.

You could spend many hours playing Overwatch before getting to that point by properly wrapping your brain around all the little intricacies it has tucked away behind its approachable veneer, but you certainly don't need to just to have a good time with it. Just trying out different characters, popping off their abilities, and moving through their world feels almost indescribably right, and it's all because of tiny, almost imperceptible details. The lid on Junkrat's grenade launcher flaps and clanks about with his every move, Lucio's movement has just the slightest touch of inertia, so you actually feel like you're skating when you play him. Zenyatta's reload animation might be my favorite; I never got tired of watching him open his arms to materialize a new set of orbs before clasping them together with a satisfying, metallic thud. It's a small thing, sure, but the sum of these minute details is that almost every action, even the ones you repeat again and again, feel just a little bit magical.

"

33% off isn't slightly. It is less accurate then someone saying "Overwatch lacks content because it doesn't have support characters." You lack basic knowledge about the game and modern games in general, which makes it pretty silly when you claim everyone agrees with you.

I am pointing out that people more familiar with the product then you do not think it lacks content even when compared to very highly rated $60 dollar games. I am pointing out that people who play modern AAA titles see a lot of paywalled customization options these days. Heck, Battlefield has been straight up selling power for years.

So become familiar with the game in question, and games in general if you want your critique to be persuasive. In the mean time, try to avoid speaking for everyone.

I'd also like to add, that the "Free2play model" concept is not unique to OW here. Halo 5 did exactly the same thing (but that had more content... but not good content). CS:Go was £20 on release (Overwatch £30), TF2 came with a full product (of already release games mostly, except portal) at £35-40. ( I think you could buy it for £15 though? cant remember now ).

I imagine most games will follow the VALVE model moving forward, OW maybe free in the future who knows.

Gambling mechanics won't just be in free2play anymore I gaurentee it. They will become a standard.

@NathanDrakeSwag: already got the zenyatta one. Git gud

"The Path is closed" is by far the worst... considering how Rare symmetra is, let alone a good one that manages to put down 3+ portals in a match

@MBirdy88: I've grown to love symmetra on payload maps. I haven't gotten the teleporter achievement yet(got really close) but I did get the car wash one. That one was fun

Wonder is blizzard going to upgrade their shit or do they intend to stay with 20 tick servers if the game aims to be competitive that's quite the slap in the face

This may be the first game to ever get me interested in the shooter genre. This game looks incredible.

You should really avoid ad hominem arguments. It's a waste of time.

Yes, I'm wishing the system in place is something else. For example, levelling up specific characters (i.e not random and monetised) would be better and wouldn't discourage people from playing the game objectively. Only if they added specific achievements (e.g get 10 head shots) would it discourage people from playing objectively.

Interesting, thanks for that. Yeah, my experience with the game is only with the full launch (May 24th) as I didn't play the beta. I wonder why people asked for it to be monetised? Did it negatively affect the progression system?

to be honest how they are advertising the game it sure feels like it. If you go by the ads going around you would think there is some fun adventure story about these characters and the world itself,but thats not the case at all. Hell theres really no story at all in game unless you go look for it online. I mean as an ad its a brilliant way to sucker people in,but still pretty messed up.

@trugs26: I'd much prefer the random unlocks. There's an element of luck and actual value behind it.

All Blizzard games have cinematics, including Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. It's just character development. nobody's fault but the end users.

Eh, let's not front, it's not the same as TF2. With TF2 Valve was more willing to take the piss out of their characters, and were almost always presented in the light of a multiplayer game. It was meant to highlight that the mp had personality, and it worked. Stuff like the Sniper, and how professionals have standards, not only works for that character, but makes sense to people who play multiplayer games. I don't want a sniper on my team who only relies on body shots, real beasts get headshots fam.

In contrast Blizzard plays it straight faced (and omg would they make a shitty movie), and almost all of the marketing is around this expansive lore and some shtick with Winston bringing the band back together, and Reaper being a prick to Winston. Hell half the time I see these characters they are fucking up other mooks who you don't even play as or against. TF2 again, they mowed down other characters in the game. Not saying it isn't on the user to do some homework, and also agree that Overwatch doesn't need sp (MP only games is one of the best trends this gen), but marketing wise, Blizzard's cinematic work are good excuse for people to go "you know what I would have wanted to see them juggle all these characters in a sp".

Shit it might actually been cool for the following premise alone, they would have had to make like 12 missions around 12 different characters with their own abilities/mechanics, would have actually made a varied sp. Would have been like Time Splitters on crack.

I'm okay with random stuff too, but I always get suspicious when monetisation is involved. Once you montesise something, you adjust the game design to be based on how you want to get money out of people, as opposed to optimising the random unlocks for fun.

@trugs26: they have to monetize something. Better cosmetic items that have no impact on gameplay than something that does

That would have required more money when Project Titan was a failure. They can't afford to spend money on SP I guess. If OW wasn't born out of a failed development, things would have been different I guess.

Tru. Not that Blizzard wouldn't have made that money back, what with the microtransactions and this game being a hit, but yeah I could see someone saying the investment wouldn't be the effort when we can just make really dumb cinematics.

The only thing "rave" about this game is the amount of drugs you need to take in order to enjoy it.

O-M-G, did he just go back to the 90's for that insult?

Mmmmhmmmm....yeah, he did.

I'm on a roll, baby!

Uncharted 4 still highest rated and frontrunner for GOTY 2016...not that a MP only shooter ever had real chance. Might pick this up for $15 on Black Friday though. Not paying full price for MP only games.

@StrongBlackVine: weird, the crazy dude who sucks at games is afraid of playing online. Go figure.

@mems_1224: Nice fake narrative there. I'm not afraid if playing online I just think it's boring.

@StrongBlackVine: because you suck at games? Because you have no friends? Both?

@mems_1224: Because I don't like running around the same maps shooting people for hours. I prefer cinematic games with a story. I have plenty of friends to play online with. I did put over 400 hours into Destiny. Appearing offline was a godsend to finally be able to play my single player games in peace.

I know you like boring ass shooters, but every one esn't share you taste in games. How many repetitive shooters are you currently playing? You are probably one of those nerds that think esports are an actual sport and not a joke.Halo, Doom, Overawatch, Counterstrike. How much of that crap are you playing at once? You probably have peel yourself off the couch from all Cheetos and Mountain Dew stains.

I'll be playing Blood & Wine, you enjoy Overrated.

Overwatch sucks

@StrongBlackVine: yup, I pretty much hit the nail on the head. I wouldn't like multiplayer games if I sucked too

Also lol at calling multiplayer games repetitive. The whole appeal is that they arent

Pointing out that someone who is speaking for everyone is spreading wildly inaccurate information and is unfamiliar with the subject isn't ad hominem. If you work at it you might find the correct logical fallacy, but considering this exchange started because you were claiming everyone agrees with you, I doubt that is your style.

You play video games, for their video game stories. Get real, Snickers wrappers have more artistic merit.

Man you stooped to his level of stupidity.

@jg4xchamp: CW shows have more depth and meaninful story telling than Uncharted 4. Better combat too.

@mems_1224: you haven't played Uncharted 4 though lmao. the story is amazing.

StrongBlackVine owning mems as per usual Lol

@elpresador-911: why would I need to play it to see the story? That's some pretty fucking stupid logic, even for you.

I cant seem to understand the hype for this game, the beta was probably the most boring beta i have ever got to try, it should have been a straight up free to play

@finalstar2007: lol you like destiny

Destiny is actually a full fledged video game unlike this OverpricedWatch

Yes the story dosent exist in Destiny but it has PvE section and things like raids, strikes, patrol, loot (even though most of the loot is a copy and paste) AND PvP which includes things like Trials of Osiris a weekly tournament for the skilled players.

What does overpricedwatch has? PvP lol

This game is not worth $80 lol

This game is actually fun and doesn't get old like your beloved Destiny.

Oh and this is comming from someone who fell for the Destiny hype and got the season pass...